俱舍論記 4.106

4.106

「如是已說至尋伺等法」者，此即總結顯餘不定。不入五地名為不定，不定所依名不定地，不定地家法名不定地法。等者，等取貪、瞋、慢、疑。此不定地法，因解五地，文便兼明。若依《婆沙》，於不定中更說有怖。故《婆沙》四十五云「睡眠、惡作、怖，及尋、伺心。」又《婆沙》七十五云「評曰：應作是說。此所起中應別說怖。所以者何？有別心所與心相應是怖自性。此即攝在復有所餘如是類法與心相應心所法內，非諸煩惱（彼論復說怖唯欲界。上界言怖，於厭說怖）。」又《婆沙》七十五云「問：若爾，厭、怖有何差別？答：名即差別。謂彼名厭，此名怖。尊者世友作如是說：怖唯欲界，厭通三界。復作是說：怖在煩惱品，厭在善品。復作是說：怖通染污、無覆無記，厭唯是善。大德說曰：於衰事深心疑慮，欲得遠離，說名為怖。已得遠離，深心憎惡，說名為厭。如是名為怖、厭差別（雖有四說，然無評家）。」問：準上《婆沙》文別說有怖，何故此論不說？解云？此論據顯，故於不定但說八種，不說怖也。或可等中亦攝，或可論意各別。問：諸心所法相對翻名，何故於中有翻、不翻？解云：詳諸經論，心所多少難為一準，多少不定，若總搜括相對廢立便成雜亂。只依此論顯相廢立，總有四十六種，謂大地法十至不定有八。於四十六中，如大地法十，尋、伺、睡眠、惡作以通三性或通二性，故此十四不別翻名。餘三十二中總有二類：一淨品有十，謂信等；二染品有二十二，謂大煩惱地法六，大不善地法二，小煩惱地法十，及貪、瞋、慢、疑。若於染中通五斷遍六識者，即正翻入淨中；若不遍五斷不遍六識者，但可傍翻，非正翻也。言通五斷遍六識正翻者，總有十法，謂大煩惱地法六，大不善地法二，及與貪、瞋。大煩惱地法六中，翻癡為無癡，無癡即是大地法慧故，於善地中不立無癡。翻放逸為不放逸，翻懈怠為精進，翻不信為信，翻惛沈為輕安，翻掉舉為捨。不善地法二中，翻無慚為慚，翻無愧為愧，翻貪為無貪，翻瞋為無瞋。於少惑中，害雖不通五斷非遍六識，而別翻者，以過重故，惱亂菩薩障趣菩提。菩薩將證無上菩提，仍起欲、恚、害覺，由斯過重，所以別翻。餘少惑九及與慢、疑，二義不具，但可傍翻，非正翻也。謂餘少惑九及疑，非通五斷非遍六識。慢雖通五斷，而不通六識，故不翻也。此十一種但可傍翻者，就中有二：一約等流門翻、二約行相相似門翻。言約等流翻者，謂是本惑等流果故。念、恨、嫉是瞋等流，翻入無瞋。惱是見取等流，翻見取為正見，正見即是大地法中慧數，所以善中不別立也。覆或是貪等流，翻入無貪。或是癡等流，翻入無癡。無癡是慧，故善中不別立也。慳、誑、憍是貪等流，翻入無貪。諂是諸見等流，翻五見為正見，正見還是慧數，故善中不立。約等流門但翻得九。慢、疑本惑，非是等流，故此二種不別翻也。害雖是瞋等流，過重別翻也，已如前釋。言約行相相似翻者，如忿、恨、嫉、惱，總與瞋行相相似，翻入無瞋。覆若貪等流，與貪行相相似，翻入無貪；若是癡等流，與癡行相相似，翻入無癡，即慧攝也。慳、誑二種，與貪行相相似，翻入無貪。諂謂諂曲，翻曲即為正直，正直是捨。故《品類足》第二云「身正直，心正直。」憍之與慢，憍自傲逸，慢凌蔑他、不敬師長，若不憍慢心便恭敬，敬即是慚，翻入慚中。疑謂猶豫不決行相，若能正決即是其慧，翻入慧中。害雖似瞋，過重別翻，已如前釋。

Regarding "Thus have been explained [the five grounds...] up to the dharmas of investigation (vitarka) and inquiry (vicāra)," this concludes [the preceding section] and reveals the remaining indeterminate [dharmas]. Those that do not enter the five grounds are called indeterminate (aniyata); the basis of the indeterminate is called the indeterminate ground; dharmas belonging to the indeterminate ground are called indeterminate ground dharmas (aniyatabhūmika-dharma). "Up to" encompasses attachment (rāga), anger (pratigha), pride (māna), and doubt (vicikitsā). These indeterminate ground dharmas are clarified here incidentally due to explaining the five grounds. According to the Mahāvibhāṣā, fear (bhaya) is further mentioned among the indeterminate. Thus the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 45, states: "Torpor (middha), regret (kaukṛtya), fear (bhaya), and the minds of investigation and inquiry." Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 75, states: "Evaluation: It should be stated thus: fear should be spoken of separately among those that arise. Why is this? There is a separate mental factor associated with the mind that is the intrinsic nature of fear. This is subsumed within 'there are further other dharmas of this kind, mental factors associated with the mind,' and is not among the defilements (that treatise further states that fear belongs only to the desire realm; when fear is spoken of in higher realms, fear is spoken of with respect to revulsion)." Furthermore, the Mahāvibhāṣā, fascicle 75, states: "Question: If so, what is the difference between revulsion (nirvid) and fear? Answer: The names themselves are the difference: that one is called revulsion, and this one is called fear. Venerable Vasumitra stated thus: Fear belongs only to the desire realm, whereas revulsion pervades the three realms. He further stated: Fear is in the category of defilements, whereas revulsion is in the category of wholesome [dharmas]. He further stated: Fear pervades defiled and unafflicted indeterminate [states], whereas revulsion is purely wholesome. The Bhadanta said: Deeply suspecting and pondering calamitous affairs in the mind and wishing to be distant from them is called fear. Having already achieved distance and deeply hating them in the mind is called revulsion. Such is the difference between fear and revulsion (although there are four explanations, none is the authoritative evaluation)." Question: According to the above passage of the Mahāvibhāṣā, fear is spoken of separately; why does this treatise not mention it? Explanation: This treatise relies on the prominent [ones], and therefore mentions only eight kinds among the indeterminate, without mentioning fear. Or perhaps it is also subsumed under "up to"; or perhaps the intentions of the treatises are distinct. Question: When various mental factors are matched against their opposites, why are some reversed [by establishing an opposite name] while others are not? Explanation: Examining the sūtras and treatises, it is difficult to find a single standard for the number of mental factors; the numbers are indeterminate. If one were to collect all of them and establish opposites across the board, it would become disordered. Relying solely on the prominent characteristics established in this treatise, there are forty-six in total, from the ten mahābhūmika-dharmas up to the eight indeterminate. Among these forty-six, like the ten mahābhūmika-dharmas, investigation, inquiry, torpor, and regret pervade all three moral natures or two moral natures; hence, these fourteen do not have separately established opposite names. Among the remaining thirty-two, there are two general classes: first, the pure category contains ten, namely faith (śraddhā) and the like; second, the defiled category contains twenty-two, namely the six kleśamahābhūmikas, the two akuśalamahābhūmikas, the ten parittakleśabhūmikas, and attachment, anger, pride, and doubt. If among the defiled they pervade the five abandonments and pervade the six consciousnesses, they are directly reversed into the pure category. If they do not pervade the five abandonments or do not pervade the six consciousnesses, they can only be indirectly reversed, not directly reversed. Those that pervade the five abandonments and pervade the six consciousnesses and are directly reversed are ten dharmas in total, namely the six kleśamahābhūmikas, the two akuśalamahābhūmikas, and attachment and anger. Among the six kleśamahābhūmikas, reversing delusion (moha) yields non-delusion (amoha); non-delusion is wisdom (prajñā) of the mahābhūmika-dharmas, so non-delusion is not separately established among the wholesome grounds. Reversing heedlessness (pramāda) yields heedfulness (apramāda); reversing laziness (kausīdya) yields vigor (vīrya); reversing lack of faith (āśraddhya) yields faith; reversing lethargy (styāna) yields pliancy (prasrabdhi); reversing restlessness (auddhatya) yields equanimity (upekṣā). Among the two akuśalabhūmikas, reversing lack of shame (āhrīkya) yields shame (hrī); reversing lack of conscience (anapatrāpya) yields conscience (apatrapā); reversing attachment yields non-attachment (alobha); reversing anger yields non-anger (adveṣa). Among the minor defilements, although harmfulness (vihiṃsā) does not pervade the five abandonments nor the six consciousnesses, it is separately reversed because its fault is extremely grave, perturbing the bodhisattva and obstructing the approach to bodhi. When a bodhisattva is about to realize unexcelled bodhi, thoughts of sensual desire, malice, and harmfulness still arise; because its fault is grave in this way, it is separately reversed. The remaining nine minor defilements, as well as pride and doubt, lack the two requirements and can only be indirectly reversed, not directly reversed. That is, the remaining nine minor defilements and doubt do not pervade the five abandonments nor the six consciousnesses. Although pride pervades the five abandonments, it does not pervade the six consciousnesses; hence it is not [directly] reversed. As for these eleven kinds being only indirectly reversed, there are two aspects within this: first, reversal in terms of being an outflow (niṣyanda); second, reversal in terms of similarity of mental mode (ākāra). Reversal in terms of outflow means that they are outflow fruits of the root defilements. Grudge (upanāha), enmity (vaira), and jealousy (īrṣyā) are outflows of anger, reversed into non-anger. Spite (pradāsa) is an outflow of adherence to views (dṛṣṭiparāmarśa); reversing adherence to views yields right view (samyag-dṛṣṭi), and right view is precisely the mental factor of wisdom among the mahābhūmika-dharmas, which is why it is not separately established among the wholesome [grounds]. Concealment (mrakṣa) is either an outflow of attachment, reversed into non-attachment, or an outflow of delusion, reversed into non-delusion; non-delusion is wisdom, so it is not separately established among the wholesome [grounds]. Avarice (mātsarya), deceit (śāṭhya), and arrogance (mada) are outflows of attachment, reversed into non-attachment. Dishonesty (māyā) is an outflow of the various views; reversing the five views yields right view, and right view is still the mental factor of wisdom, so it is not established among the wholesome [grounds]. In terms of the door of outflow, only nine can be reversed. Pride and doubt are root defilements, not outflows; hence these two are not separately reversed. Although harmfulness is an outflow of anger, its fault is grave and it is separately reversed, as explained above. Reversal in terms of similarity of mental mode: for instance, wrath (krodha), enmity, jealousy, and spite all have mental modes similar to anger, and are reversed into non-anger. If concealment is an outflow of attachment, its mental mode is similar to attachment, and it is reversed into non-attachment; if it is an outflow of delusion, its mental mode is similar to delusion, and it is reversed into non-delusion, which is subsumed under wisdom. The two dharmas of avarice and deceit have mental modes similar to attachment, and are reversed into non-attachment. Dishonesty means crookedness; reversing crookedness yields uprightness, and uprightness is equanimity. Thus the second fascicle of the Prakaraṇapāda states: "Uprightness of body, uprightness of mind." As for arrogance and pride: arrogance is self-inflation, while pride is looking down upon others and disrespecting teachers and elders; if one is free from arrogance and pride, the mind is respectful, and respect is precisely shame, so they are reversed into shame. Doubt has the mental mode of vacillation and indecision; if one is able to decide correctly, that is wisdom, so it is reversed into wisdom. Although harmfulness resembles anger, its fault is grave and it is separately reversed, as explained above.